DSA Quantitative Analysis and Predictive Modeling of Obliteration in Cerebral AVM following Stereotactic Radiosurgery

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Patibandla MR,
   2. Ding D,
   3. Kano H, et al

   . Effect of treatment period on outcomes after stereotactic radiosurgery for brain arteriovenous malformations: an international multicenter study. J Neurosurg 2018;130:579–88 doi:10.3171/2017.8.JNS171336 pmid:29393755

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Pollock BE,
   2. Link MJ,
   3. Stafford SL, et al

   . Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations: the effect of treatment period on patient outcomes. Neurosurgery 2016;78:499–509 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000001085 pmid:26990410

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Ding D,
   2. Starke RM,
   3. Kano H, et al

   . Radiosurgery for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations: an international multicenter retrospective cohort study. Neurosurgery 2017;80:888–98 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx181 pmid:28431024

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Flickinger JC,
   2. Pollock BE,
   3. Kondziolka D, et al

   . A dose response analysis of arteriovenous malformation obliteration after radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;36:873–79 doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(96)00316-1 pmid:8960516

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Karlsson B,
   2. Lindquist C,
   3. Steiner L

   . Prediction of obliteration after gamma knife surgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurgery 1997;40:425–30; discussion 430–21 doi:10.1097/00006123-199703000-00001 pmid:9055280

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Hopewell JW,
   2. Millar WT,
   3. Lindquist C, et al

   . Application of the concept of biologically effective dose (BED) to patients with vestibular Schwannomas treated by radiosurgery. J Radiosurg SBRT 2013;2:257–71 pmid:29296371

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Jones B,
   2. Hopewell JW

   . Modelling the influence of treatment time on the biological effectiveness of single radiosurgery treatments: derivation of “protective” dose modification factors. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20180111 doi:10.1259/bjr.20180111 pmid:29745754

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Millar WT,
   2. Hopewell JW,
   3. Paddick I, et al

   . The role of the concept of biologically effective dose (BED) in treatment planning in radiosurgery. Phys Med 2015;31:627–33 doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.04.008 pmid:25982304

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Nesvick CL,
   2. Graffeo CS,
   3. Brown PD, et al

   . The role of biological effective dose in predicting obliteration after stereotactic radiosurgery of cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Mayo Clin Proc 2021;96:1157–64 doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.09.041 pmid:33958052

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Oppenheim C,
    2. Meder JF,
    3. Trystram D, et al

    . Radiosurgery of cerebral arteriovenous malformations: is an early angiogram needed? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:475–81 pmid:10219415

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Steiner L,
    2. Lindquist C,
    3. Adler JR, et al

    . Clinical outcome of radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 1992;77:1–8 doi:10.3171/jns.1992.77.1.0001 pmid:1607950

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Derdeyn CP,
    2. Zipfel GJ,
    3. Albuquerque FC, et al

    ; American Heart Association Stroke Council. Management of brain arteriovenous malformations: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2017;48:e200–24 doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000134 pmid:28642352

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Aerts HJ

    . The Potential of Radiomic-Based Phenotyping in Precision Medicine: A Review. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:1636–42 doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2631 pmid:27541161

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Hassani C,
    2. Varghese BA,
    3. Nieva J, et al

    . Radiomics in pulmonary lesion imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;212:497–504 doi:10.2214/AJR.18.20623 pmid:30620678

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Han Y,
    2. Yang Y,
    3. Shi ZS, et al

    . Distinguishing brain inflammation from grade II glioma in population without contrast enhancement: a radiomics analysis based on conventional MRI. Eur J Radiol 2021;134:109467 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109467 pmid:33307462

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Su Y,
    2. Xu X,
    3. Zuo P, et al

    . Value of MR-based radiomics in differentiating uveal melanoma from other intraocular masses in adults. Eur J Radiol 2020;131:109268 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109268 pmid:32947090

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Lambin P,
    2. Leijenaar RT,
    3. Deist TM, et al

    . Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14:749–62 doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 pmid:28975929

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Christie JR,
    2. Lang P,
    3. Zelko LM, et al

    . Artificial intelligence in lung cancer: bridging the gap between computational power and clinical decision-making. Can Assoc Radiol J 2021;72:86–97 doi:10.1177/0846537120941434 pmid:32735493

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Bi WL,
    2. Hosny A,
    3. Schabath MB, et al

    . Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:127–57 doi:10.3322/caac.21552 pmid:30720861

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Sala E,
    2. Mema E,
    3. Himoto Y, et al

    . Unravelling tumour heterogeneity using next-generation imaging: radiomics, radiogenomics, and habitat imaging. Clin Radiol 2017;72:3–10 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.013 pmid:27742105

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Neisius U,
    2. El-Rewaidy H,
    3. Nakamori S, et al

    . Radiomic analysis of myocardial native T1 imaging discriminates between hypertensive heart disease and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2019;12:1946–54 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.11.024 pmid:30660549

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Mannil M,
    2. von Spiczak J,
    3. Manka R, et al

    . Texture analysis and machine learning for detecting myocardial infarction in noncontrast low dose computed tomography: unveiling the invisible. Invest Radiol 2018;53:338–43 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000448 pmid:29420321

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Castellano G,
    2. Bonilha L,
    3. Li LM, et al

    . Texture analysis of medical images. Clin Radiol 2004;59:1061–69 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2004.07.008 pmid:15556588

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Tourassi GD

    . Journey toward computer-aided diagnosis: role of image texture analysis. Radiology 1999;213:317–20 doi:10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv49317 pmid:10551208

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Ding D,
    2. Liu KC

    . Predictive capability of the Spetzler-Martin versus supplementary grading scale for microsurgical outcomes of cerebellar arteriovenous malformations. J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg 2013;15:307–10 doi:10.7461/jcen.2013.15.4.307 pmid:24729957

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Pollock BE,
    2. Flickinger JC,
    3. Lunsford LD, et al

    . Factors that predict the bleeding risk of cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Stroke 1996;27:1–6 doi:10.1161/01.str.27.1.1 pmid:8553382

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Stapf C,
    2. Mast H,
    3. Sciacca RR, et al

    . Predictors of hemorrhage in patients with untreated brain arteriovenous malformation. Neurology 2006;66:1350–55 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000210524.68507.87 pmid:16682666

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Pollock BE,
    2. Flickinger JC

    . Modification of the radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation grading system. Neurosurgery 2008;63:239–43; discussion 243 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000315861.24920.92 pmid:18797353

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. De Oliveira E,
    2. Tedeschi H,
    3. Raso J

    . Comprehensive management of arteriovenous malformations. Neurol Res 1998;20:673–83 doi:10.1080/01616412.1998.11740583 pmid:9864730

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Wegner RE,
    2. Oysul K,
    3. Pollock BE, et al

    . A modified radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation grading scale and its correlation with outcomes. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:1147–50 doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.12.056 pmid:20605347

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Lawton MT,
    2. Kim H,
    3. McCulloch CE, et al

    . A supplementary grading scale for selecting patients with brain arteriovenous malformations for surgery. Neurosurgery 2010;66:702–13; discussion 713 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000367555.16733.E1 pmid:20190666

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    1. Kim H,
    2. Abla AA,
    3. Nelson J, et al

    . Validation of the supplemented Spetzler-Martin grading system for brain arteriovenous malformations in a multicenter cohort of 1009 surgical patients. Neurosurgery 2015;76:25–33 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000556 pmid:25251197

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Fedorov A,
    2. Beichel R,
    3. Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al

    . 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:1323–41 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001 pmid:22770690

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.↵
    1. Pinter C,
    2. Lasso A,
    3. Fichtinger G

    . Polymorph segmentation representation for medical image computing. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2019;171:19–26 doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.02.011 pmid:30902247

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    1. van Griethuysen JJM,
    2. Fedorov A,
    3. Parmar C, et al

    . Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 2017;77:e104–07 doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339 pmid:29092951

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Ding C,
    2. Peng H

    . Minimum redundancy feature selection from microarray gene expression data. J Bioinforma Comput Biol 2005;03:185–205 doi:10.1142/s0219720005001004 pmid:15852500

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Peng H,
    2. Long F,
    3. Ding C

    . Feature selection based on mutual information: criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2005;27:1226–38 doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2005.159 pmid:16119262

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 38.↵
    1. Ma L,
    2. Fan S

    . CURE-SMOTE algorithm and hybrid algorithm for feature selection and parameter optimization based on random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 2017;18:169 doi:10.1186/s12859-017-1578-z pmid:28292263

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Chawla NV,
    2. Bowyer KW,
    3. Hall LO, et al

    . SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 2002;16:321–57 doi:10.1613/jair.953

    CrossRef
40. 40.↵
    1. Lundberg SM,
    2. Allen PG,
    3. Lee SI

    . A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. advances in neural information processing systems. November 2017. arXiv:1705.07874 [cs.AI] http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874. Accessed May 1, 2023
41. 41.↵
    1. Lundberg SM,
    2. Nair B,
    3. Vavilala MS, et al

    . Explainable machine-learning predictions for the prevention of hypoxaemia during surgery. Nat Biomed Eng 2018;2:749–60 doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0304-0 pmid:31001455

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    1. Lundberg SM,
    2. Erion G,
    3. Chen H, et al

    . From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat Mach Intell 2020;2:56–67 doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 pmid:32607472

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Yang HC,
    2. Peng SJ,
    3. Lee CC, et al

    . Does the diffuseness of the nidus affect the outcome of stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with unruptured cerebral arteriovenous malformations? Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2021;99:113–22 doi:10.1159/000510683 pmid:33264796

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Gao D,
    2. Meng X,
    3. Jin H, et al

    . Assessment of gamma knife radiosurgery for unruptured cerebral arteriovenous malformations based on multi-parameter radiomics of MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 2022;92:251–59 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2022.07.008 pmid:35870722

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Oermann E,
    2. Rubinsteyn A,
    3. Ding D, et al

    . Using a machine learning approach to predict outcomes after radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Sci Rep 2016;6:21161 doi:10.1038/srep21161 pmid:26856372

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Meng X,
    2. Gao D,
    3. He H, et al

    . A machine learning model predicts the outcome of SRS for residual arteriovenous malformations after partial embolization: a real-world clinical obstacle. World Neurosurg 2022;163:e73–82 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.03.007 pmid:35276397

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Jiao Y,
    2. Zhang JZ,
    3. Zhao Q, et al

    . Machine learning-enabled determination of diffuseness of brain arteriovenous malformations from magnetic resonance angiography. Transl Stroke Res 2021;13:939–48 doi:10.1007/s12975-021-00933-1 pmid:34383209

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Shi K,
    2. Xiao W,
    3. Wu G, et al

    . Temporal-spatial feature extraction of DSA video and its application in AVM diagnosis. Front Neurol 2021;12:655523 doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.655523 pmid:34122304

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    1. Kleinbaum DG,
    2. Kupper LL,
    3. Muller KE

    , eds. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Boston: PWS Kent Publishing Co; 1988
50. 50.↵
    1. Sollini M,
    2. Cozzi L,
    3. Antunovic L, et al

    . PET radiomics in NSCLC: state of the art and a proposal for harmonization of methodology. Sci Rep 2017;7:358 doi:10.1038/s41598-017-00426-y pmid:28336974

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Gillies RJ,
    2. Kinahan PE,
    3. Hricak H

    . Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 2016;278:563–77 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169 pmid:26579733

    CrossRefPubMed